November 9, 2009

Dear Sir,

In response to Stephen Notman's "Trying to have it both ways" Friday November 6, I must firstly apologise: if I am misunderstood, then I am at fault, having failed to use the English language effectively. If I am deliberately misunderstood, then I have no defence, but I will give Mr. Notman the benefit of the doubt and blame my own communicative inadequacy.

From what declaration in my letter ("Milestones of Progress" of October 15) does Mr. Notman draw the erroneous conclusion that I believe that: "God is a moral monster that thankfully does not exist"?

My reference to a "fearsome deity" was a reference to the manner in which the marshaling religions have used concepts of good and evil, God and The Devil, to terrorise people into conformity to the moral values of the day, which, depending on the day, have changed like the weather.

I mean, do we hear the terms "Incubus" and "Succubus" today? – No. Thankfully. Yet they were part of everyday religion a few years ago. Do we hear that the church believes in the divine right of kings? — No, but that was an unquestionable tenet a few years ago.

I am not surprised that Mr. Notman damns Darwin with faint praise ("Darwin himself, though in many ways a good man…") I suspect that Mr. Notman is a religious fundamentalist in Anglican-intellectual clothing.

To put the matter straight. I do not disbelieve in God. I do not regard God as "a moral monster".

I respect all faith and abhor all sectarian religions which preach hatred and condemnation and intolerance. And if Mr. Notman is truly an advocate of Jesus Christ he will know that Jesus Christ never once preached hatred, condemnation, or intolerance.

I am insufficiently knowledgeable about other sects to draw attention to their misappropriation or misinterpretation of their prophets' teachings.

Mr. Notman's didactics centre around his discourse on the nature of morality. He does not believe that we as a race can have any worthwhile morality if our morality is "merely a collection of cultural and sociobiological pressures converging on the individual" and if we are no more than " a slave to our genes".

But my whole point is that we as a race have been transcending our limitations, breaching our gene imprisonment, and conquering our baser instincts by virtue of our subjective morality which has grown in stature and accomplishment as nations have grown and matured and as our thought processes have grown and matured, and as history has highlighted our past follies and injustices…. and as we have learnt from our past mistakes.

The "moral standard" which is "good" is what is good for mankind. And what is good for mankind, is, in the main, good for planet Earth and the rest of its inhabitants — with the exception of harmful viruses and bacteria and what we call "pests" such as cockroaches, locusts, rats, etc., which "objective morality"as defined by theology teaches us we must not kill, but which subjective morality allows.

Much early religious moral teaching was good for mankind in the early stages of communal organisation. These teachings were arrived at with the express purpose of increasing tribal numbers and for making men responsible for the feeding and clothing of their wives and offspring, for defence and aggression, for the maintenance of food crops and herds. Deity Fear was an essential part of instigating belief in reprisal for failure to obey the rules.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was indeed a "profoundly devout Christian" – but one who challenged the"objective morality"of theology by subscribing to an unsuccessful assassination attempt which was conducted in the best interests of mankind.

Many theologians proffer the opinion that Bonhoeffer believed in a "religionless" faith.

Why is it considered nihilistic to believe in mankind? – Are we, if there is no objective morality, as truly worthless and misbegotten as Mr. Notman would have us believe?

Mankind's purpose is to live and thrive and work and play and think and do and love and help and grow and achieve and succeed and in fulfilment go from this world, the trial over and the test passed. It is not for me to conjecture if we subsequently take up winged residence on a cloud with a harp for company, or we resign ourselves to meeting the requirements of seventy-two virgins, or we come back as a cockroach, just in time for a lethal spray of insecticide, or a thwack by a rolled-up copy of The Royal Gazette.

On the subject of my own personal faith.

I have prayed. Not for me. That would be selfish. But for others. Those prayers were answered.

There is one big prayer which I would like to make but so far I haven't the courage. Maybe your readers will help me. I would like to pray that the men and women who live in Bermuda would set aside any rancour towards one another and understand and forgive before the polarised divisions become so malignant that future generations will not know peace or love but only malevolent hatred of each other. Hatred consumes its own hosts like a virulent disease. Look in the mirror and if you see a face poisoned with bitterness and malice, use the antidote of forgiveness and love, wait for some time and study yourself in the mirror again and see if you notice a change. It works. I know. I've been there.

We have reared generations on a diet of hatred and it has produced confused and angry young people.

The reason I am afraid to pray for harmony in this society is that I don't think that we've done enough ourselves to redress the problem before we ask for intervention.

Pseudo-theological discourses on existence versus ordained existence are not much good if we can't solve the real problems.

Mr. Notman asks me to provide "rationale for moral accountability when all human action is reduced to material processes governed by the same laws that produce rain showers and belly button lint".

The rationale for we "complex meat machines" as Mr. Notman derisively refers to Man Without Objective Morality is our intelligence and our compassion.

"Reductive determinism"? — no, we can command the course of our destiny and in giving us free will, that is most probably what God intended, and that is most probably the meaning of The Gift of Life.

Belief in God, and subjection to religion are two quite separate and different things.

Your readers can see how quickly Mr. Notman resorted to the accusation of heresy when I responded to his thesis. Were Mr. Notman's lot still in charge, I would have been carried off and burned at the stake, my howling pathetic protestations of belief immaterial to the hymn-singing urgency and triumphalism with which the zealous mob would light the tinder beneath my (beaten) feet.

TACITURNUS

Southampton

Recommended reading: "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne, and "A Father in Sion" by Caradoc Evans.